NISAR AHMAD KHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN and 6 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld his ejectment under the Rent Restriction Law. The core legal question was whether a prior demand for an increase in rent by the landlord renders a subsequent ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement mala fide and legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court held that a mere demand for an increase in rent does not per se establish mala fides or invalidate a subsequent bona fide eviction application on the ground of personal requirement, unless specific circumstances demonstrate otherwise. The court established the key principle that a landlord's demand for increased rent cannot automatically be used to defeat a claim for personal requirement in rent restriction matters. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, while granting the tenant four months to surrender vacant possession.
- Does a landlord's prior demand for an increase in rent automatically render a subsequent eviction application on the ground of personal requirement mala fide?
- Can a demand for increased rent serve as a sole basis for the rejection of an ejectment application under the rent restriction laws?
- Whether the High Court's dismissal of a tenant's writ petition against an ejectment order warrants interference by the Supreme Court where no mala fides are demonstrated?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petition. It had arisen out of order of his ejectment under the Rent Restriction Law.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that proper attention has not been paid to the petitioner's plea that the landlord side had at one time wanted to increase the rent, therefore, it was a mala fide application for eviction. The issue of personal requirement accordingly should have been decided against them.
3. We cannot accept the very wide argument vis-a-vis, the demand for increase of rent, as presented by the learned counsel. Such a demand per se can neither be a basis for a finding of mala fides nor such like alleged mala fides, can be the basis for rejection of an application for eviction, in every case. Nothing has been pointed out in this case, so as to demonstrate that the demand of increased rent even if factually made, would make the subsequent demand for eviction on ground of personal requirement, as otherwise than bona fide.
4. ' The High Court judgment notwithstanding the so-called error pointed out by the learned counsel, thus remains unexceptionable. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.
5. ' By the consent of both the learned counsel the petitioner is allowed four months further time to surrender vacant possession to the respondents side, without notice and without execution proceedings; but subject to regular payment of agreed rent.
Cited by 8 cases
- Naseer Uddin Jatoi vs Miss Reham Asad through Attorney and 2 others 2022 YLR 2243
- Mrs. MARYAM A. MUNIF vs Mrs. GHAZAL BUKHARI through Attorney 2015 CLC 1786
- Messrs NAJAM HARDWARE STORE through Proprietor vs IMRAN and 16 others 2013 YLR 705
- Mst. SAEEDA through her son Muhammad Abid vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM and 3 others 2013 PLD Sindh 39
- MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT vs ABDUL RAZZAK 1999 YLR 2022
- ANIS AHMED and 7 others vs Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED 1997 MLD 1
- SHUJAAT AL Versus EHSANUDDIN 1992 MLD 1237
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs Rana AHMED ALI 1991 MLD 770